Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by Inspector of Police, Thiruppalaikudi Police Station – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.50 of 2021, dated 07.02.2023, on the file of the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused were friends. The deceased was an operator of a JCB, and the accused used to work with him. On 30.07.2020, at about 10.30 a.m., while the accused was having his breakfast at Hotel Sumaiah Amma, the deceased arrived and teased the accused, asking if he would buy borota for him. This led to a worsening of the enmity between them. Later on the same day, at about 02.30 p.m., when the deceased was resting in the veranda of a building located on the north side of the Government High School at Chozhandhur, the accused struck the deceased's head with a granite stone with the intention to kill him. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
3. On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.226 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigati
The court clarified that intention to kill is pivotal in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide, confirming conviction under Section 304 Part II given absence of intent despite a fatal a....
A conviction for culpable homicide requires establishing intent, which was lacking in this case, leading to a revised charge under Section 304 Part II IPC.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the intention of the accused, with grave provocation leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302.
The court held that lack of clear intent in a violent altercation necessitated a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court determined that acts committed in sudden provocation can result in a conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II instead of murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The court distinguished culpable homicide from murder based on intentions and provocation, identifying a lack of mens rea for a murder conviction.
The court ruled that the appellant's actions stemmed from sudden provocation without intent to kill, modifying the conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 if the act occurs without premeditation and in the heat of passion.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
Provocation leading to loss of self-control can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC, requiring evaluation of intent and the nature of prior events.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
